It seems odd to be saying so much about Lincoln on a day when I’m primarily reflecting upon Washington. Yet I’ve known for some time I’d likely repost some Lincoln remarks from a Facebook thread earlier this month. (I’ve learned that people don’t have access to the URL I would have provided.) Seeing as the man who initiated my remarks in the first place—hereafter referred to as “Conrad”—has a new status for the day of “Today I celebrate only George Washington,” but within the comments showed a largely unrepentant attitude about his earlier Lincoln bashing (having become, as Paine, would say, more subtle but no more just), here goes.
My issue isn’t with celebrating only Washington—in technical point of fact, Lincoln’s never had a federal holiday, anyway—or even with the implication that there’s no day in the year he would celebrate Lincoln, but that he’d publicly piggyback such disdain onto the day’s festivities. He’s used federal holidays and landmarks to such an end in the past. His December 7 remarks were positively offensive. (And, yes, it’s crossed my mind several times that at least some form of blocking what I read on Facebook might give me more peace of mind generally. This ought to show the extent to which I’m willing to bear with others’ polar views, which they do not always give to mine.) What he doesn’t understand, in his agreement with others that even Washington’s greatness was diminished by his role against the whiskey tax rebellion, is that a nation like ours rejecting all meaningful history will come to have no meaningful future. I turn for perspective to President Hinckley’s
“The Lord is at the Helm.”I never have defined a hero as someone free of all mortal shortcoming; realizing that, we
need heroic models. Historians—of which I am one—have failed their cause if their role is viewed purely as criticism from the sidelines, let alone interference which cannot improve. In the course of the more recent thread, an appropriate reference was made to
an article put out today, which points out how “meaningful” Lincoln’s life is to Mormons. That is, those who have paid attention to the teachings of their own leaders and/or gleaned their history from sources other than conspiracy hack jobs. President Hinckley
at one point, consciously or not, elevated Lincoln even above Washington, as “America’s greatest hero.”So, moving on to the offending status of February 3...”Why do ‘rule of law’ Republicans heap praise upon a President who: suspended the Constitution and habeas corpus; launched his own military invasion; imprisoned thousands of citizens w/o trial; shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers, imprisoning dozens of their owners/publishers; censored communication; nationalized railroads; confiscated firearms; interfered w/ elections; and deported his most outspoken critic?”
Shortly before I jumped in, Conrad’s own grandfather posted, “Pres McKay felt that Abraham Lincoln was led by God. (President David O. Mckay, Conference Report, October 1968, Afternoon Meeting, p.144 ) “And we all know how God did guide Abraham Lincoln.’” Now for my usual overly done responses:
Shame on you, assailing a great man’s memory with self-serving and revisionist history! My admiration of Lincoln runs “counter” to an entirely Confederate pedigree and is free of any Republican “allegiance.” In this era of skepticism and historical implosion, I’m doing the truly bold and independent thing in defending him. Depending upon how one spun the words, quite a case could be made to appear against Captain Moroni as well (with some very similar allegations). Sadly, President McKay’s faith in the future outlook of the American people may have been too high, when he depicted the “life of the immortal Lincoln, in whom was ‘vindicated greatness,’ to whose character the passing centuries can add only more brilliant lustre” (TTF19; McKay lists him (ToL377), with the Smiths, among courageous and martyred defenders of truth, and President Joseph F. Smith included him (GD31) in the march of leaders of men inspired by Christ for the progress of society, specifically in this case in the areas of “emancipation and union”). I suppose, sarcastically, that President George Albert Smith likewise fell prey to a defective education
in his laudatory, “[Lincoln] gave his life because of his desire for the perpetuation of the liberty that was guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States. He was unafraid. When the duty was placed upon him to battle for the liberties of mankind, he dedicated his life to that purpose, and in due time, our Father in heaven accepted his offering, and his name is emblazoned upon the pages of history as a great and noble man who dared to do right, and his praises will be sung and his virtues extolled throughout all time.”
President Hinckley had to bemoan the loss of heroes, clearly referenced in context as genuinely moral and essential to a solid education, after “the debunkers of Washington and Lincoln have done their job, and we all are the poorer for it” (DPGBH1:561, 563; see Ezra Taft Benson, TNSE22). He rightly taught, “I urge you to see the big picture and cease worrying about the little blemishes. Abraham Lincoln was a gangling figure of a man, with a long and craggy face. . . . Many . . . never saw the true greatness of the man. That enlarged view came only to those who saw the whole character—body, mind, and spirit—as he stood at the head of a divided nation in its darkest hour, lacing it together ‘with malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God’ gave him to see the right. . . . Of course, there are aberrations in our history. There are blemishes to be found, if searched for, in the lives of all men, including our leaders past and present. But these are only incidental to the magnitude of their service and to the greatness of their contributions. Keep before you the big picture . . .” (TGBH430-431).
I’ve easily read at least 5,000 pages more than incidentally about Lincoln, his life and his policies, and I find the selectivity of the linked articles reprehensible. It’s scarcely even worth debating the merits of lone post-partisan, yet anti-national, works with an ax to grind. The skulduggery brings a bare minimum of actual source material to support its assertions against the mortal whom President McKay really did believe was “the greatest Emancipator” (MMKFH394). One of the crying sins of our day is expecting men who were already exceedingly visionary to so far transcend their time that no one would have even understood them, to expect Joseph in Egypt to establish a republic or Luther to dethrone the pope, or some other such thing, when the Almighty Himself was moving by small and steady means against the devil’s tyrannical stranglehold. They accomplished the purposes for which they were sent (as President Faust once referred, TREUY71, to Lincoln’s “special gifts”), no matter if we feel to look back and condemn.
Lincoln spoke most cautiously to an electorate filled with racist notions, intending, and announcing his intention, to choke off slavery and condemn the institution to death while not doing violence to its holders. The Church’s abolitionist leanings led to a lot of grief in terms of polity, regardless of the rightness or wrongness in how others may have discovered it. Lincoln’s horror over slavery arose from a deep, abiding humanity. (Many have deliberately misunderstood his political application to the ethical dilemma, which actually greatly resembled how the Church might suggest going about it.) It was important that he lead the people by the hand to see as he did, without losing a debate because Douglas played on alarm that he was actually encouraging a slave revolt. (Gleefully calling forth Frederick Douglass’ angry belief that Lincoln moved too slowly to emancipate is hardly a historical argument that Lincoln was racist and oppressive. We all have political adversaries, as well as discord even among our own camp. Lincoln suffered Christian-like through far more than his mortal share.) To quote Washington, “A people unused to restraint must be led; they will not be drove.” The war came after all else failed, after decades of brash argument and counterargument. A Union private scrawled in a South Carolina court record, “South Carolina was the root of secession. The South are to blame for this war and none others. Why did not the Southern States wait and see whether [or at least HOW] A. Lincoln would interfere with slavery before they seceded?”
Those who quote the July 17, 1858 speech leave out his earlier-within-debate, “I adhere to the Declaration of Independence. If Judge Douglas and his friends are not willing to stand by it, let them come up and amend it. Let them make it read that all men are created equal except negroes.” Where Lincoln seems to disappoint our modern ears again, in reassuring his listeners that he wasn’t trying to elevate the black man too rapidly, he spoke in terms they could understand, “All I ask for the negro is that if you not like him, let him alone. If God gave him but little let him enjoy.” As for another of the sparse quotations wrested from Lincoln, we’re supposed to be shocked by his use of the “n” word, which was a commonality in the nineteenth century, even—are you sitting down?—among the Brethren! The “proportion” which Lincoln defined, giving a hierarchy of crocodile, black man, white man, is seen in the original sources as his own restatement of the OPPOSITION view. HIS proposition, prefacing the paragraph, was, “The proposition that there is a struggle between the white man and the negro contains a falsehood. There is no struggle between them. It assumes that unless the white man enslaves the negro, the negro will enslave the white man.” He then had the courage to denounce slavery as the snake which must not be allowed into the children’s bed.
If a Latter-day Saint is to accept direction in their constitutional studies from the Brethren at all, they’d do well to consider that this Facebook status reflects the real distortion of history and complete ignorance of the clear implications of what the Brethren, quite averse to war on the whole, have felt constituted a legitimate defense of this nation. (Lincoln truthfully and with the approbation of heaven meant what he wrote: “We shall nobly save or meanly lose this last best hope of earth.”) In fact, perhaps we should approach their writings with a more questing heart and bring fewer of our own fanciful preconceptions or willful desires to the table, hoping in our blindness to scour support from some wild sector. President Benson’s writings are interwoven with quotations from Lincoln, as he, like so many others, quoted him approvingly. Someone asked how I intended to go about defending him, and I replied that, from an LDS standpoint, one didn’t have to dig deep at all to find the support. This prosaic piece is a mere sampling.
Indeed, I might challenge where among the teachings of the Church there is ever other than a largely uncritical and unanimously positive appraisal of the man (the exception of Brigham’s remarks was directed with his special flair against the office more than the man, as well as anti-polygamy legislation, as shown in passing
at this link); this, as you see, also clearly places Lincoln among the company of worthy dead who appeared to President Wilford Woodruff, saying, “We laid the foundation of the government you now enjoy, and we never apostatized from it, but we remained true to it and were faithful to God.” By Woodruff’s day, and his own statement, three presidents were excluded from such a status, but Lincoln was not!). They consider him one of the “great” men of history (Ezra Taft Benson, SSYR94, 148; Spencer W. Kimball, MF278). If Lincoln was a despot, one might wonder about the sanity of so many of our leaders in not pointing out whether there’s an actual inconsistency in—as if we’d quote Stalin about how to secure democracy—citing Lincoln’s “foresight” about preventing the birth of “Caesars and Napoleons . . . to dictatorships within a democracy,” with said solution [this from Lincoln] being that “the people . . . be united with each other, attached to the government and the laws, and generally intelligent, successfully to frustrate his design” (Harold B. Lee, DFSL218). President McKay, more frequently than others (such as President Howard W. Hunter,
who also used it, appreciated Lincoln’s observation about love of the liberty bestowed by God being “the bulwark of our liberty and independence” more than all military might, and a guard against “the seeds of despotism” (see GI288). That Lincoln had to resort to such military means is so patently obvious that their endorsement of his views MUST be a statement to give one pause, else we’d succumb to cognitive dissonance. Just as President Grant taught—before C.S. Lewis—that Jesus was either a liar or what he claimed to be, for a false claim to divinity would debar one from the right to be a moral teacher, the prophets have inferentially accepted Lincoln’s right to instruct us morally, from his “lofty soul” (David O. McKay, CR, Apr. 1951, 93) on the very issues with which certain jaded “historians” and political enthusiasts now take issue.
You, sir, take your critique of all institutions too far, inciting national disunity during perilous times. It’s not, strictly speaking, Confederate propaganda, but it draws on the same spirit of pointless antagonism and strife, leaning on mistaken principle, in actuality hastening the unraveling of any collective fabric, the dissolution of so much as a desire to have united states. I don’t think you know what you’d supply in its place once depriving the United States of so many of its footings, for an appealing but utopian view of the Constitution, so permissive of so-called individual rights as to nullify cohesion. For me, it’s not enough simply to challenge the constitutionality of everything. That’s like asking whether a meal can be digested; that a certain sustainability ought to be in place goes almost without saying. The secondary and immediate consideration is then healthfulness. We ought to focus on what’s best for this nation to arrest our decline in all areas, mainly encompassed by a moral view. To quote Lincoln, in terms of advocacy rather than grousing, “No one who has sworn to support the Constitution can conscientiously vote for what he understands to be an unconstitutional measure, however expedient he may think it; but one may and ought to vote against a measure which he deems constitutional, if, at the same time, he deems it inexpedient.”
You lead us to a different brink. This is assuredly beam against mote type ideology, tragically again contradicting President Hinckley’s questioning “who can discount the beauty and the wonder of Abraham Lincoln’s words?” (DPGBH1:551) before once again quoting his charitable views, which I have always contended would have healed the wounded nation far better than the subsequent course. William Bennett records, “One Southern woman told General Sherman she was glad Lincoln had been shot. Sherman replied: ‘Madam, the South has lost the best friend it had.’” He was not one, as Brigham Young stated (broadly), to chasten beyond his ability to administer healing balm...or to chasten without love or purpose, very necessity. He emancipated the South itself, both black and white, for many contemporaries observed of the blasted region that the structure of their society, which set the aristocratic few above all others, was truly to blame. Men fought and died at the insistence, and through the rhetoric, of those propped up in economic power. Such backwards and unAmerican thinking could never have led to improvement via secession.
Lincoln’s respect for upholding the law always remained in defense of the overall democratic process: “There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law. In any case that arises, as for instance, the promulgation of abolitionism, one of two positions is necessarily true; that is, the thing is right within itself, and therefore deserves the protection of all law and all good citizens; or, it is wrong, and therefore proper to be prohibited by legal enactments; and in neither case, is the interposition of mob law, either necessary, justifiable, or excusable.” One of Lincoln’s statements about “reverence for the law,” often quoted by the Brethren, and which I’ve asserted against rising concepts here that Latter-day Saints ought to engage in so-called civil disobedience in our present society, was prefaced in one usage by President Heber J. Grant—who practically opened his administration with an appeal to Lincoln’s good sense (CR, June 1919, 138-139)—with the declaration that “every Latter-day Saint believes that Abraham Lincoln was raised up and inspired of God, and that he reached the Presidency of the United States under the favor of our Heavenly Father” (
this whole link is useful, but find #17 by search term “Lincoln”; see a near-identical reference in Messages of the First Presidency, 5:263). Grant’s statement was one of linkage, not mutual exclusivity, when he stated, “One of the Articles of our Faith declares that we believe in sustaining the law and supporting the rulers. So that not only should Latter-day Saints follow the advice of the immortal Lincoln [contained in the directly heretofore mentioned quotation], but they should follow the doctrines of the Church to which they belong” (CR, Apr. 1926, 5).
-------
He answered, “Kristopher, while Lincoln may have had his positive attributes, and perhaps even a divinely-justified mission (though I contest that the various specifics of everything he did meets with God's approval), my point still stands: he did not follow the law. He repeatedly broke it. Those who laud his actions argue either that God inspired him to do what he did or that the ends justify the means, but I've yet to see any response explaining that he did in fact follow the law in carrying out his actions. Do you contest this?”
Conrad, I’m not saying I have easy answers. What I am saying is that there are things you must not understand about the Constitution, the law, even wartime requirements/powers, and the hand of divine inspiration in history (much like those who got off the boat with the Manifesto, in spiritual comparison, unable to apply themselves to what is and is not actually justified). I’m offering a gentle warning call to go back to square one in formulating some of your arguments.
There’s a tendency on this page at times, when actually deferring to the LDS angle, to use Joseph Smith’s statement, “That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, ‘Thou shalt not kill’; at another time He said, ‘Thou shalt utterly destroy.’ This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.” As far as this applies to the debate at hand, such a sentiment was never meant as a justification in advance for social theory, but a justification in hindsight for what was undertaken with God’s command.
To continue, such a mentality—as I’ve seen it in yourself and others—is to support your own view, at all costs. Nothing is to be held sacred or to go unchallenged in arriving at your conclusions. Truth cannot be reached when one has undercut the very legs to stand on. You really are, if you’ll pardon the truism, throwing the baby out with the bath water. With reference to how I’ve seen the above quote used, if we differ, we’re forced to prove how God required it. However, if you differ, you evade the issue and hammer home your own interpretation of the Constitution.
I don’t know what your processing filter of acceptance of general authorities’ teachings is in application to the issue, but it would seem they’re at least as qualified to comment on the intentions of the Founding Fathers as we are, and there’s often a gap between your conclusions and theirs, however much you like to find what Charles W. Penrose described: “notions derived from obscure passages of scripture or isolated expressions made by prominent speakers and writers,” instead of taking “the recognized standards . . . as the proper written guide.” Since in the past you’ve utilized John Taylor to impart a disdain for every law with which you disagree (not the only, but evidently a primary, personal requirement for ascertaining unconstitutionality), and to strongly imply an incorrect course of action therewith, I’ll use what he’d likely say on the matter: “It is by taking up little odd texts that mistakes are often made and incorrect ideas conveyed. We must take the whole thing to ascertain what is intended, and rightly divine the word of truth.” Not only does your argument here hinge on your interpretation of constitutional powers, it apparently hinges on your own interpretation of Lincoln’s acts. The common saying that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter can cut both ways. I think it’s quite clear how the Brethren perceive the particular man currently under consideration. I’m surprised at you. If you really want to arrive at the truth, you can’t just dismiss their unanimous teachings while nabbing isolated sentences to support your opinions.
I don’t have the time to debate it with you, or the expertise in nuances. This is not a free pass to smugly conclude that the absence of response is defeat. I acknowledge my weakness in commenting on such sweepingly momentous issues as constitutional law and political reform. I will, however, say this much: reserved powers will apparently mean whatever you want it to mean. You’re coming across increasingly as a law unto yourself, with an acerbic tone about almost everything and everyone else. For instance, you never answered Michael Sparr’s valid question about whether you believed—the logical inference from your many remarks to that end—that all military personnel are thugs.
Ends justifying means is an unacceptable mortal modus operandi. Nevertheless, if God has indicated that someone WAS justified in what is, for us, the end, it warrants careful thought as to just what was or was not justifiable as he went along. I contend that much more than you think was allowable in the eyes of heaven. Earlier, I brought up the comparison to Captain Moroni. The good captain, whom you use for a page header, much more nearly resembles Lincoln than yourself. I say that quite objectively; it’s not a personal attack. For consistency, are you going to have a status update criticizing the measures Moroni took? It wouldn’t be enough to beg out on the grounds that scriptural verse justifies his character, as we have similar expressions from the Brethren for Lincoln, nor would it be enough to say that God commanded HIM, as little more is described for carrying out his motives than good character and personal revelation, the same basis offered for Lincoln.
Lincoln once answered his critics, “If I were to try to read, much less answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business. I do the very best I know how—the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what is said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.” If he were a war criminal or tyrant, from a theological standpoint, Abe wouldn’t have come out alright in the end, with a quoteworthy reputation among all the Brethren, who, again, know what they’re talking about in showing us great leaders. Calm down and realize we’re not saying to emulate every act and feature. I’m just politely asking that you stop tarnishing his total image and try thinking about his “positive attributes,” and how and to what extent it overshadowed other things. (You downplayed the only obvious conclusion from my prior composite of authoritative sayings, which left little room to doubt that the sum total of his positive attributes was much, much, much larger than any handhold by which to abuse him.)
In the light, rather than the darkness of criticism of a man whom God’s anointed also called anointed in important respects (meaning politically, and not just personally), you may then discover for yourself, and the good of others, how we can safely avoid any deviations to which he may have acceded during times of tough decisions. In conceding a divinely justified mission, are you saying he failed to meet it? Or that he pulled it off with a compromised character? The Brethren put Lincoln in a good light, which is where he ultimately belongs. I can’t even meet you halfway, in your assessment, “Lincoln's actions were clearly un-constitutional, and likewise tyrannical.” The Brethren haven’t said they were arguably, at times, such. Sarcastically (a poor note to end on), how good that it’s clear to you and not to them.
-------
Conrad posted nothing else on that thread, though an individual by the name of Ronald paused to say, “Just LOL'd upon reading the line ‘I don’t have the time to debate it with you’ somewhere in the middle of approximately 4,200 lines of debate from one commenter above.” I responded, perhaps a bit sensitively, “More like 111 lines, and I type more words than that number per minute. Perhaps you have a complaint about the substance, or an insinuation that it's vapid?
“Perhaps you overlooked my preceding portion of the debate (still well under 200 lines)? Even when one knows exactly where to go for material, it takes an astounding amount of time to compile, type, and spot check. Such was honestly intended as a service for all, so it kind of stings worse when such labors are met with scorn.
“I almost solely addressed the theological aspect because that carries valid weight with Conrad (and simultaneously required the least amount of preparation from me, given all options, to still remain sound in argument). It can't merely serve him when supporting a foregone conclusion and drop away when it doesn't. I applied myself to explicating my protest of a fundamentally flawed premise. To begin to lay out historical circumstances, executive/legislative positions, leading into habeas corpus...yeah, believe me, I DON'T have time to pull it together right now. It's best left for the expertise of others, BUT assuredly we realize one can find all kinds of source material, and not just a meager article or two operating from the same logic as that already presented in the first place.”
After three days of silence, Nathan weighed in:
So I've checked back at this thread a couple times to see if there was a response to Kristopher's comments. Seeing as no one has taken pains to respond, and seeing that I am familiar with material with which to do so, I'll provide the following. It seems that we have a thesis and an antithesis, so in my response I'll try to fashion a synthesis.
While we have the statements Kristopher has provided in favor of Lincoln, here are some against:
"The Lord has pointed out the fate of this Nation in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants. He has said that when they became ripened in iniquity they should be cut off. That day has come. Their cup of iniquity is full. The whole Nation, rulers, and people are filled with corruption before god, and the President & Senate of the United States are sending men to Utah to rule over this people as a Governor & Judges who are so corrupt that they are a Hiss & bye word and a stink in the Nostrils of all people in the Streets. . . ."
[end of entries for year 1861--Abraham Lincoln's first term; in Wilford Woodruff's journal].
15 March 1861: President [Brigham Young] . . . remarked that Abel Lincoln was no friend of Christ, particularly, he had never raised his voice in our favor when he was aware that we were being persecuted. He was acquainted with Joseph & Hyrum, and had been a Master Freemason. [The Office Journal of President Brigham Young: 1858-1863, Book D (Hanna, Ut.: Collier's Publishing Co., 2006), p. 220.]
9 July 1861: Pres Young remarked to H. C. Kimball who had come in, that old "Abe" the President of the U.S. has it in his mind to pitch in to us when he had got through with the South. President Kimball observed that men that he had met with, whether they had little or much of the Spirit of God, were in favor of the South. [The Office Journal of President Brigham Young: 1858-1863, Book D (Hanna, Ut.: Collier's Publishing Co., 2006), p. 266.]
5 August 1861: The President [Brigham Young] remarked that Stephen A. Douglass was a far better man than President Abel Lincoln, for he knew his feelings were hostile to this people. Pres Wells acquiesced in these remarks. [The Office Journal of President Brigham Young: 1858-1863, Book D (Hanna, Ut.: Collier's Publishing Co., 2006), pp. 277-78.]
21 August 1861: President Young speaking of Abraham Lincoln remarked [that] if the Kingdom of God was not in the way, Abraham was [a] pretty good man, but he acted as if he would rather the Kingdom of God was out of the way; he was not the man to raise his voice in favor of Joseph Smith when his enemies were persecuting him. He with many others had assented to the deaths of innocent men, and through that he is subject to the influence of a wicked spirit. [The Office Journal of President Brigham Young: 1858-1863, Book D (Hanna, Ut.: Collier's Publishing Co., 2006), p. 284.]
24 August 1861: The feelings of the Brethren are gratified by hearing of the continued success which attends the Southern Confederacy. [The Office Journal of President Brigham Young: 1858-1863, Book D (Hanna, Ut.: Collier's Publishing Co., 2006), p. 285.]
2 December 1861: In conversation with the brethren about the policy and movements of federal government and Southern Confederacy, the President [Brigham Young] remarked we need not expect any thing sensible from them, for the spirit of wisdom is taken away from them. He remarked that Pres Lincoln and Congress appear not to realize that there is a war on hand. It is not so with the South—they are keen and alive. [The Office Journal of President Brigham Young: 1858-1863, Book D (Hanna, Ut.: Collier's Publishing Co., 2006), p. 316.]
11 December 1861: I will see them in hell before I will raise an army for them. Abe Lincoln has sent these men here to prepare the way for an Army. An order has been sent to California to raise an army to come to Utah. This is the reason why Ball came back. I pray daily that the Lord will take away the reigns of Government of the wicked rulers and put it into the hands of the wise and good. I will see the day when those wicked rulers are wiped out. The Governor quoted my sayings about the Constitution I do and always have supported the Constitution but I am not in league with such cursed scoundrels as Abe Lincoln and his minions. They have sought our destruction from the beginning and Abe Lincoln has ordered an army to this Territory from California and that order passed over on these wires. [Wilford Woodruff's Journal, vol. 5 (Midvale, Utah: Signature Books, 1984), pp. 605-6.]
18 March 1862: Pres. Heber C. Kimball called in. The President [Brigham Young] discussed with him the wicked course the American Nation had taken with this people, observing the government was running into a despotism, and they were willing the government should be despotic while they were in power. The President observed that Abraham Lincoln was a sagacious man, but believed he was wicked. [The Office Journal of President Brigham Young: 1858-1863, Book D (Hanna, Ut.: Collier's Publishing Co., 2006), p. 362.]
So clearly Lincoln had his issues. This doesn't mean that he was evil to the core, however, and the wrongs he committed were quite possibly honest mistakes, perhaps with good intentions. Perhaps he was deceived in "assenting to the deaths of innocent men".
But there are two separate issues being debated here. One has to do with judging Lincoln's very character, and one has to do with judging his actions, especially in regard to the Constitution. I think Kristopher has made some important points about his character, and while it is perhaps not as clear-cut as he implied, he made some good points in defending it.
However, I think we can justifiably point out his mistakes and violations of the Constitution. It is not merely "[Conrad's] interpretation" that a number of his actions were unconstitutional, but it is demonstrated by a great number of legal scholars, and arguably easy to objectively recognize from even a basic reading of the text. The brethren have not commented one way or the other as to the constitutionality of his actions, and to imply that Conrad's awareness of this is somehow in conflict with the brethren--given their silence--is fallacious, not to mention snarky.
Of course, judging his character is much more complex. But even if we like Lincoln, we should condemn his errors, rather than justify them to fit our view of him. This way we will be able to avoid repeating them.
As for the comment referencing Joseph Smith's quote as "never [being] meant as a justification in advance for social theory", if this was in reference to my usage of it when discussing drug laws, you missed my point. It was used in order to reconcile what can be perceived as a contradiction between God's revealed eternal laws--which do, contrary to the beliefs of many, instruct us on political matters--and the then-current instruction from his servants.
I naively thought I could reply in haste:
Wow. You've been waiting for an opportunity to say something.
I only see two sources here...lots of spacing doesn't mean there's lots more to it. Collier's is a well-known apostate foundation. Even where somewhat acceptable,
people find his ability to weigh sources questionable. Through the years, the Brethren have shown on principle that they don't appreciate having private, off-the-cuff records utilized as representative of their considered stances--especially where there almost seems to be a broad difference.
Even given some respectability, the Brigham Young office record as offered remains a snapshot, heated at times, from one administration. Some aren't even straight up Brigham at all, some (as anyone familiar with the history of
the Journal of Discourses knows) may not capture his pronounced, settled view on the matter, and still others really don't address Lincoln in a more than group capacity. As for the rest, you've succeeded in showing that somewhere in LDS or possibly LDS writ there's a negative reference. Congratulations. (Although I already made the aside for what circumstances may have transpired during Brigham's time.) I sincerely hope no contrary evidence was omitted even from these scarce sources. Brigham also made this public telegram back East in October 1861: "Utah has not seceded, but is firm for the Constitution and laws of our once happy country."
Winders' recent book on prophets and presidents (and I use this as a link, not having the book itself on hand at the moment:
http://thegreataccommodation.blogspot.com/2008_05_01_archive.html) shows that Lincoln was at least no more antagonistic than the general consensus toward the Mormons, probably less, and that Brigham also said--much as I generally prefer using all possible Conference addresses and official correspondence--to President Woodruff in 1860 that he hoped Lincoln would win. Contemporary wounded feelings over the persecution and expulsion led to a highly government-suspicious view for decades. At any rate, President Grant is responsible for publicly popularizing the "official" view that Stephen Douglas had turned against the Church.
Lincoln was a convenient scapegoat for conversation during Utah's Civil War days--isolated in the extreme--as representative of the federals.
Where do I think we stand in terms of synthesis of material? After the dust of the war settled, the unanimous assessment of Lincoln's presidency became and remained exactly as I already outlined. We have many, many--well, all--references from modern prophets going for the guy.
One might be surprised, as one digs, how very much legal scholars differ. It's daunting and contributes to the hapless feeling, as if the Constitution has gotten out of reach of the average citizen. I still don't have time to broach that portion of the debate, but article number one is evidently the habeas corpus. If the clause for its suspension, in cases of rebellion or invasion, wasn't at least up for fair consideration at the moment Lincoln stared it squarely in the face, I'm not sure when it would be. That too was inserted for a reason, not that the founders were wasting ink on an inadmissible issue constitutionally. Lincoln's methods as to its enforcement are more a subject for debate among the scholars (often influenced, surprisingly, by political leaning) than this thread has made it appear....
-------
To this, Ronald rushed in with the genuinely snarky, “Kristopher, your argument essentially comes down to ‘my GA trumps your GA’. Legally, we value the accounts of those who witnessed and experienced events first hand. In the church, we value diaries and journals for the great insights we get into the lives of the persons affected by the events of the day. Except when it concerns an idol, such as Lincoln, apparently. Even in BYU Law constitution classes, as in any other law school, it is admitted that there are multiple leaps in logic required to give Lincoln even the shakiest constitutional foundation. Oh well. The end justifies the means, right?”
I believe Ronald was still smarting from my unintentional slam in answer to Conrad’s unrelated status: “I wonder: what age do I need to reach before people who disagree with me will stop resorting to playing the age card as a defense of their argument?” Ronald had replied to Conrad, “Never. Playing the age card is as useful a tool as playing the ‘my GA trumps your GA’ card when arguing with a Mormon.” Much later on, I’d written:
There’s wisdom in seeking and receiving good counsel. [Taught in many forms ever since Joseph Smith’s scripturally based, “In the multitude of counsel there is safety” (TJS149).] Even the oldest and sagest of men do it. Still, folly rears its head at any age, but it’s as they say, there’s no fool like an old fool. Dave Barry, “You can only be young once. But you can always be immature.”
I’m mildly curious about that “my GA trumps your GA” notion. After a (short!?) lifetime of study, I think a large number of Mormons have fallacious ideas about synthesizing theology. What should never be arguments in the first place rapidly deteriorate; as President Lee would note, at least one and possibly both must be wrong. Some general authorities DO trump other general authorities. I’ve seen single members of the Seventy pressed into service against presidents of the Church, while unsubstantiated remarks by solitary presidents don’t carry the weight of the entire First Presidency in unison. On one particular issue, there are seriously members who think their interpretation of Roberts (70), Widtsoe (12), and a somewhat-inaccurately-quoted Talmage (12) is proof unassailable versus six presidents of the Church and at least 10 additional apostles.
At no time, per the teaching of many presidents, can something vague and unclear be brought to bear which is not already borne out by what has gone before, although the living president technically has the right to assert something over and against our understanding of predecessors. I find the way to safety is a thorough understanding of as massive a body of historical teaching as possible, coupled with a humble appreciation of the minute by minute present instruction.
The age card by itself, though...quite inappropriate. "Let no man despise thy youth." Let them despise our uninformed positions!
My final argument, after Ronald’s scathing post, which has since gone unanswered:
I had to dash off my initial response before heading to work.
@Ronald and Nathan: No, if my argument must be described in such a manner, then I insist that it’s all general authorities surpassing certain persons’ limited understanding of a single, long-dead one, something more like an entire deck against the hand of a card or two of low value. If any true discrepancy happened to exist, I’d say that “the living prophets always take precedence” (TETB136), though I deplore even so much as a gentleman’s disagreement being cast between Brigham just above and President Monson, who declared, “When I think of love, I think of Abraham Lincoln, one of the outstanding presidents of the United States. He was also one of the nation’s greatest writers and orators.” There goes any possible disclaimer that they’re using his words and shunning his deeds. He then quoted from a letter in which he said we could surely feel “within [our] heart the love that filled his,” one which, most alarmingly to the pessimistic worldview here, contained such propaganda as thanking a mother who’d lost “five sons who died gloriously on the field of battle,” earning “the thanks of the republic they died to save,” leaving their mother “only the cherished memory of the loved and lost and the solemn pride that must be [hers] to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom” (Ensign, Mar. 1996, 6). The entire substance of that reference was naught but the old school historical portrayal trampled upon by Conrad’s misrepresentation.
Truthfully, President Monson and the multitudinous cloud of witnesses leading up to this day have the advantage of hindsight, while President Young was subject to the unfolding events of his own. There’s not a sufficient argument made to overturn the weightier testimony of so many of recent date. Their appraisal AFTER the events of the war carries more credibility from a historical standpoint than that given while in the agitated state of fog of war. He himself confessed that to the end of his life he had a weakness for temper. He said a lot of things about a lot of people. If we were to be strictly guided by such utterances, particularly those made behind closed doors, chaos would ensue. Brigham loved Joseph so much that he felt anyone unwilling to intervene was an accessory to the martyrdom. What’s more, anyone is in a heap of trouble who can’t differentiate between Brigham’s expressions of what he wished and felt, versus what he eventually soberly counseled people to do. He toned down considerably as Johnston’s army approached the valley (and they were likewise, and more murderously, nurturing threats)—it would have been a massacre if his first sermon were enforced instead of his last, in effect to “prefer [oneself] above the truth.” (Or, as I observed many years ago of the edited version of Crimson Tide, to enjoy the possibility of acting on initial contingency orders so much that one refuses to receive any subsequent ones.) President Young had no real dealings with Lincoln, for the Church was rightly riding out the war. We can derive a great deal of personal insight from journals of the day, but not doctrine, when it’s the odd man out. As a trained historian, I wouldn’t build a case solely on one witness when many additional ones of equal or greater value are available.
I’ve kept this civil, though I don’t appreciate its being made to appear that I’ve asserted something which the Brethren haven’t, in a forum which sometimes points to supposed “prophetic political silence” to justify its own ends. It seems that many would prefer silence, for the teachings of our prophets are perceived as meddlesome when vocal. This holds true for those who allow politics to affect their religious belief and practice, in a mistaken elevation of the wrong principles. If only they studied their religion as assiduously! I quote from President Lee (THBL525-526; see TETB139), in a format which will prove even more ominous by the time I reach my conclusion:
"We have some tight places to go before the Lord is through with this church and the world in this dispensation . . . which shall usher in the coming of the Lord. . . . The power of Satan will increase; we see it in evidence on every hand. There will be inroads within the Church. There will be . . . 'Hypocrites, those professing, but secretly are full of dead men's bones' (see Matthew 23:27). . . . Now the only safety we have as members of this church is to do exactly what the Lord said to the Church in that day when the Church was organized. We must learn to give heed to the words and commandments that the Lord shall give through His prophet, 'as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; . . . as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith' (D&C 21:4-5). There will be some things that take patience and faith. You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord Himself, with patience and faith, the promise is that 'the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name's glory' (D&C 21:6).”
The prophetic commentary on the (end sum) constitutionality of Lincoln’s actions is bundled up in their hearty approval. Essentially all are agreed that the vexing catastrophe which befell the United States during the Civil War was punishment for its prior violation of civil rights (including those of the Saints). Lincoln was at the helm because God’s hand was still stretched out to preserve the nation for its divine ends, once the immediate chastening at hand was complete.
I wasn’t cavorting in the region of gaps in teachings, but filling them in for everyone. President Young was a passionate man, and I genuinely sympathize with you if the extent of your understanding of an issue is scouting out some blunt remarks from him. I can see why those who immerse themselves too deeply in the unrehearsed literature of the territorial period often develop some very strange ideas out of keeping with the direction the Church has actually taken. (I respectfully submit that I have intensely studied no inconsiderable volume of the teachings, older and modern.) Do you honestly believe that this paltry offering offsets that abundant material presented heretofore, or really even makes so much as a dimpled mark?
President Kimball described a man who fell away after having committed many older teachings from those times to heart, confessedly knowing them “infinitely better” than Kimball. “However, he was depending wholly upon himself and his own interpretation of the program and was moving farther and farther away from the truth. He said, ‘I know more about the sermons of the brethren in the days of Joseph and Brigham and Heber C. than does the President of the Church, or any of the apostles, or any of the stake presidents or the bishops. Why should I go to them?’” (TSWK446). Elsewhere (Ibid., 461-463), he went on: “Any new program or doctrine, which comes to the Church, will come through the authorities of the Church and be approved by them. . . . They who garnish the sepulchres of the dead prophets begin now by stoning the living ones. They return to the pronouncements of the dead leaders and interpret them to be incompatible with present programs. They convince themselves that there are discrepancies between the practices of the deceased and the leaders of the present. . . . As the critics of the Redeemer still worshipped Abraham and the critics of Joseph Smith could see only the Savior and his apostles, and as the apostates of Brigham’s day could see only the martyred Joseph, now there are those who quote only the dead leaders of the pioneer era.”
This is as good a place as any to indicate that this is why I can no longer in good conscience retrieve source material (admittedly a highly limited role to date) for Conrad. Let him painstakingly build his own case; why should I give with ease that which could readily support efforts with which I disagree (on a more than cantankerously personal basis)? It’s a shaky path to utilize something a prominent leader said in 1861 or thereabouts because we like the flavor, when such doesn’t neatly fit the totality of teachings, such as repeated supplemental statements on a similar issue a century or more later.
Ronald, I get the sense that you ridicule my argument for lack of an appropriate rejoinder, possibly hoping to draw me into a different field where you might unseat me more easily. I’ve already spoken my view on ends not justifying means, yet you persist in behaving as though you haven’t even glanced at my earlier arguments. Leaps in logic to give Lincoln any credit at all for constitutional behavior? Are we referring to the man confronted with a crisis the magnitude of a civil war? With states toppling like dominoes in dissent, and armies of hostile men amassing within striking distance of the capitol, yearning for a blow to be struck? (As another concession to the theological stance, so certain am I of Lincoln’s portrayal and purpose that I’m also confident my forefathers aren’t rolling in their graves, though four direct ancestors, and many, many more collateral individuals, were killed on the Confederate side in the war.) Many legal analyses which I’ve discovered—not tinctured with country-loathing or the libertarian cynicism—state that, while unprecedented in scope, his course was generally quite logical, even when raising eyebrows. Why is it so incredible to believe there might be positive assessments of his motives AND acts AND end results? (Pray stop harping on the misconception that I’m relying solely on the last.)
But that you may know I’ve given such considerations a great deal of nonpartisan thought, I spill the select offering of the tip of the iceberg, gleaned in a matter of minutes from the Internet and hardly a genuine glimpse of what I have studied and could study, in contravention of the above obscene viewpoint. These are best returned to after my closing arguments. As an eye opener, there’s
this sensible overview of possibilities, presenting one of the Founding Fathers in a similar vein and introducing us to Justice Taney, who, for all his own forward looking, condemned Frederick Douglass [this should say Dred Scott] to renewed servitude. One interesting insight into Lincoln:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=29. A fair overview of one issue:
http://blogs.dickinson.edu/hist-404pinsker/2010/10/26/ex-parte-vallandigham/. A far more extensive treatment (and note where it says “most historians” fall):
http://www.d11.org/palmer/social_studies/teachers/schulzki/IB/Lincoln%20and%20the%20Constitution.pdf. The conclusion of this more “balanced” review—demonstrating the sheer broadness of the spectrum of intelligent application to this problem—is interesting:
http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/books/reviews/20030718_citron.html#bio.
Another balanced and more entertaining piece casts some historical context the same as the largest article, and, importantly, describes sympathetically how little undue advantage Lincoln personally sought from having gained elbow room with which to conduct the distasteful war.
With increasing frequency, I observe the trend that only those with the most strident political agendas care to assert that someone else could have actually done the job better than Lincoln. As people here grow so upset when I touch their golden calf, undermining a beloved deduction, I wonder why they don’t take it up with so many of those living general authorities who’ve joined in passive refutation of their ideology, rather than miscasting every alternate argument I make in opposition to their fantastical premise? Why can’t they see it any other way, remaining perversely fixed despite so much evidence from the Brethren themselves that they may want to loosen their hold?
That brings me to my final points, and why so many libertarian policies are as fatal to the prosperity of this church and nation as any number of other philosophies. For example, I weary of so much pointing to protests against polygamy as though the historical comparison is a readymade one to our day’s political climate and needs. So much packaged hysteria and pathos as a method of debate! I cannot stress strongly enough how cautionary the Brethren are about the cafeteria selection plan which looks back to those days and disregards much more recently available counsel.
Consider whether remarks about the need for more maturity, or other such resistance, might not be the result of unfruitful discussions which alienate a significant and faithful portion of the Latter-day Saint population. Not that he wants it to be so, or necessarily believes it to be so, but Conrad’s anti-authoritarian attitude at times extends to leaders of the Church. I mean no condescension, but many times I’ve shaken my head in disbelief, wondering how it is that we could have grown up in the same church, and studied some of the same sources, and yet have such incredibly divergent conclusions. I know Conrad has many friends who take similar issue with him, but their public controversies with him have become few and far between. I’m leaving personal opinion on many matters out of this and openly tackling those which deserve comment. I never meant to come across as snarky, though those who crossed his path in disagreement have felt a brand of something similar.
Far gentler than the military he openly despises, the Church nonetheless has a command structure which we’ve covenanted to uphold. It sounds good to declare that "ultimately" his concern is to “never give a power to your friend that you wouldn't want your enemy to have.” (This concept would eliminate most loving relationships.) However, not long ago a President McKay quotation arose here, placing defense of the Constitution next to that of the Church. There’s no conflict; the latter hasn’t departed from the former. Too many profess that the Church has taught them their love of the Constitution, but offer evidences that they love very different things. Of the utmost concern to me, on the other hand, was that sentiment phrased well by President Benson (and upheld in similar statements by many others): “One who rationalizes that he or she has a testimony of Jesus Christ but cannot accept direction and counsel from the leadership of His church is in a fundamentally unsound position and is in jeopardy of losing exaltation.” President Woodruff reported that a member once presented a proposal for some unusual doctrinal system to the Prophet Joseph. Joseph exclaimed that it was beautiful, carefully adding that he had but one fault to find with it: “It is not true.”
I see a similar situation in so quickly setting aside the united wisdom and counsel of our leaders, as if to say one knows better because it seems an ironclad constitutional case can be made for one's own viewpoint. The Brethren both have and consult political and legal experts on their part, too, and never advocate anything but that which is right to the fullest extent of what they can consider in this life, and what is in their belief best for everyone. I’d also say they’re entitled to an enormous amount of inspiration in their sphere. Lo and behold, Conrad is helping lead a large contingent away from the clear, unequivocal stance which they have taken asserting support for Proposition 8. Have they done so unconstitutionally? Do we dare say they have done so unwisely? Can we seriously claim that they do it hatefully or divisively? This kind of specious antagonistic reasoning disunites the Church in its efforts at salvation in the last days. It’s often been reiterated in these forums that the Church won’t openly hand us a plan on how to rescue the Constitution. One such strategy lies right here, and so many turn from it!
Surrender the open, urgent, firm, yet loving advocacy of morality and there will be too few moral and religious people left to govern by the Constitution, whatever pleasant arguments we might have about the extent of governmental influence. Prideful members set in their ways ignore the fact that it’s not merely isolated apostles who condemn the notion that we can AVOID “legislating morality” of some form. Instead of a slippery slope of governmental control being their only horror, they ought to focus on the slippery slope of deregulating all of human behavior and interaction, to the point where anywhere we go, whatsoever a man does will be no crime, in effect legislating all manner of amorality and immorality instead. In the earnest efforts to encourage atomic breakdown to misguidedly believed individual rights, we learn too late that there is such a horrific thing as unity in evildoing and we have only hastened the ascendancy of the voice of the people in desiring that which is wrong.
Nathan, yours wasn’t the only usage of that sometime misappropriated Joseph Smith statement, but looking back now I see that it was you on the "drug legalization" issue. (I didn’t make a personal case out of it.) When we sustain our leaders as prophets, seers, and revelators, there is the inherent recognition that God’s commands will become more apparent through them. Justifications galore came out when I first posted these two links to show that the Church’s stance in favor of Prohibition was nothing to sneeze at:
http://kristacook.blogspot.com/2010/08/prohibition-heber-j-grant-and-same.html, and
http://lds.org/ensign/2003/05/loyalty?lang=eng, for President Hinckley's bridging the gap of history. (In fact, that talk’s theme of “loyalty” has everything to do with this part of my message.) Those were but a few of President Grant’s remarks, given in nearly every Conference year after year, so that he could declare the Church was “fundamentally for” Prohibition. The tragic response to his pleas led him to on more than one occasion craft the clever retort that people should add a modification to the end of their version of “We Thank Thee, O God, For a Prophet.” I hate to see President Grant booed out, and I must also state that he was hardly alone, as speaker after speaker united on the theme, which was eventually to be ignored by the membership. (In this, I see a fair comparison to current conditions.)
Following the repeal, the First Presidency (MFP5:339) noted that “members have always stood for temperance; they still stand for temperance, and should unitedly use their influence for the enactment of rational laws which will hold the liquor traffic in proper restraint, that we may never return to the golden age of the bootlegger, or the intolerable conditions which preceded him.” Prior to its repeal,
they had made the Church’s sympathy with the restrictions then in place quite apparent. The entire First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve were in agreement on that.
In application to present-day coordinated efforts with like-minded organizations toward moral ends, these circulars demonstrate that the temperance movement and the Church’s reasoning WERE distinct. I know of no push for a measure banning tea, in response to one angry individual’s feeling that President Grant was just confused about whether the Word of Wisdom could be extended beyond the Church’s pale. Similarly, the desire to uphold Prohibition went well beyond sustaining the law already in place, to supporting it because it was the best thing. Therefore, the flaw in methodology was not the prohibition itself, but the unwillingness to shoulder any burden and seek out the most effective means of vanquishing the traffic once and for all.
In conclusion, a portion of keeping our eyes on our leaders, who will never lead us astray (in majority, or in singularity where the living president is concerned), is to observe their very behaviors. President Benson explained, “The expression ‘follow the Brethren’ has a broader meaning than some would apply to it. It means not only to agree with the counsel given to the Church by the Brethren, but also to follow their example in appearance and deportment.” This would entail making their priorities ours, and noticing the matters upon which they do not agitate. “Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, until he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7, JST). In the ways that truly count, He has inspired our leadership to timely advocacy throughout our history. Theirs is the greatest cause to which we can lend our support. A dear friend taught me valuable lessons in my own youth about “putting a filter on [my] holy zeal,” showing from many examples and President Packer’s clarification that the lasting behavior and general tenor of our leaders becomes, by what is often unwritten, unspoken agreement, the binding tone and direction of church affairs. They are reverent, soft-spoken, constitutional scholars, civic servants—in short, some facet of Christlike personality is reflected all the time within the general body of the Brethren. They become all needful things to all people. They know and follow rules of authority and obedience, speech and refraining, and so forth.
This is no unquestioning, unthinking obedience. It calls forth every ounce of effort in study, observation, and prayer. It is extraordinarily far-reaching in scope and comprehensive in mental requirement. It does require an adaptability when change is urged, and there is expansive room for our own personal connection with heaven and within our individual, familial, and community spheres. Would that more members’ energies went into such a worthy pursuit!
-------
My rare public expression on political parties arose from Conrad’s gradual decline—observed by comparing his attitudes of several years ago—into the national Libertarian platform. It’s not that I’ve never seen any valid points made from their end. There was a time when they held my sympathies more than at present. But I remain, as I have for years upon years, unattached to any party line (hence, in accord with many general authority statements, and much freer to form opinions from a more “universal” and gospel-inspired frame of mind). However much many libertarian adherents protest their not accepting all practices of the nationals (defined by one fellow as “0 govt, free love and legal drugs, and pretty much whatever you want to believe”), J. Reuben Clark already noted in his review of certain Middle Age practices in Catholicism that in many instances, whatever line of contrary text someone can point to in a library somewhere doesn’t address the fact that a body’s canonized belief is that which it consistently trains its followers to believe. Conrad fails to realize that surrounding himself with young radicals who share his beliefs, and employing his own force of language (or the law degrees of some of his followers) against those who still disagree, differs little in my view from President Benson’s warning, “We sometimes look among our numbers to find one to whom we can point who agrees with us, so we can have company to justify our apostasy. We rationalize by saying that someday the Church doctrine will catch up with our way of thinking.”
The sort of counsel which is rarely found outside of the experience of wisdom in age is lacking precisely because of overlooking Joseph Smith’s admonition that “every man, before he makes an objection to any item that is brought before a council for consideration, should be sure that he can throw light upon the subject rather than spread darkness, and that his objection be founded in righteousness, which may be done by men applying themselves closely to study the mind and will of the Lord, whose spirit always makes manifest and demonstrates the truth to the understanding of all who are in possession of the Spirit” (TPJS, 94).
The kind of confusion they promulgate was expressed this very afternoon by one libertarian to Conrad (trusting him altogether too much, I might add): “I'm honestly still forming my opinion about Lincoln, as well as many of our national ‘heroes’. I think they all had their faults as well as admirable qualities. Part of my current struggle is seeing the Constitution as a ‘divinely inspired document’ as well as perhaps not the best thing that could have happened. I know there are those in the libertarian movement who would prefer that we had stayed with the Articles of Confederation, and I'm trying to sort out how one can be 100% for ‘liberty’ and yet believe what the brethren have said about the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, Lincoln, etc.”
[The above severity of confusion is unexpectedly sustained by a comment from Conrad's crowd, from one of those existing in the murky nowhere land of reputedly acting politically as a Republican while maintaining Libertarian concepts. On February 22, in response to a discussion about a possible Congress shutdown, a new individual said: "I see no reason why they should meet once a year or even have legislators at the Federal level. They were originally created for times of war, am I right? If so then we should simply have the Governors of each state join together at times of war. They are in charge of the national guard anyways. then we would not have this run away Federal government with the ridiculous laws. The worst thing that happened to this Country was the Federal gov regulating interstate commerce. What was the point of that? Some argue that states were at war with each other with out the ability but the Federal government has not prevented economy wars. Just look at AZ and California now."]
Conrad has said, “What's the next target of the ‘war on drugs’? Elmer's glue? Radiator fluid? Nail polish remover? This insanity knows no limit.” Then, “If the government bans texting while driving, shouldn't it also ban other distractions such as looking at billboards, changing the air conditioning, applying makeup, speaking to another person in the car, adjusting the radio dial, or being consumed by one's own thoughts?” As if he really doesn’t know which actions constitute an actual physical threat to others as opposed to entirely his own person, or well-being. (While the thought gives rise to the act, not even in an ecclesiastical capacity do we believe in externally punishing that nascent state.)
It’s my observation that prolonged exposure to the primary tenets of libertarianism dulls one’s ability to discern the weight between issues ("weightier matters of the law," as it were) pertaining to liberty. (There’s a great deal of commentary about just how far Ayn Rand’s philosophizing can really go. [I know I'm oversimplifying things, as Rand wouldn't characterize herself as a libertarian. I find protean protests from individuals who point out the many (hydra) heads of the organization. Yet their antagonistic remarks are almost of a stripe, whether arising from self-styled "classical liberals" or any other name, and often no more contributory than, "So you think to save our liberties by restricting them?" I'd much rather be relying dogmatically on Paul than on (Ron) Paul.]) To the latter status, one wise, mutual friend, remarked, “Conrad: then should they also ban speed limits, traffic lights, what side of the street one can drive on, and all other traffic rules? You might be skirting with the difference between federalism and statism. I believe federalism is good, and constitutional.”
I then commented, “Following up certain libertarian leanings to their extremes can make one prey to every ‘slippery slope’ hypothesis there is, in attempting to weigh human liberty on the scale offered by such a philosophy. Similar dangers lie in adopting any philosophy too tightly which is, in the end, only a perspective. Just an insight into why so many were myopic during Christ’s ministry, failing to see how he wasn’t destroying the law, but fulfilling it. (The Church’s moves occasionally baffle those trapped inside of certain political constructs, no matter how frequently it attempts to show that we shouldn’t be bound by party.) Jacques Ellul commented that he in no way denied the beauty of Neoplatonism, only that it was in any way actually Christian, yet millions today swear by certain forms of Christianity constrained by definitions imposed by that philosophy. All I’m really saying is that one can inappropriately create a 'hedge' of redefining law around the Constitution, or just as inappropriately deny the parameters within which it intended to preserve order. The Founders hoped that the intelligence of our people would remain such as to hammer out reasonable details inside that tension.”
